七百九十四（二）
〇五七頁9：牧之序長吉詩，品藻矛盾。按賀貽孫《詩筏》云：“唐人作唐人詩序，亦多夸詞，不盡與作者痛癢相關。此《序》中‘春和’‘秋潔’二語，不類長吉，似序儲、王、韋、柳五言古詩。而‘雲烟綿聯’‘水之迢迢’，又似為微之《連昌宮詞》、香山《長恨歌》諸篇作贊。若‘時花美女’，則《帝京篇》《公子行》也。此外數段，皆為長吉傳神，無復可議。”
卡西尔
E. Cassirer
容安館札記
錢
鍾
書
〇六一頁10：“一端相似，推而及之於初不相似之他端，如《秦王飲酒》云：‘敲日玻璃聲。’”按《東坡集》卷二十《日喻》云：“生而眇者不識日，或告之曰：‘日之狀如銅盤’，扣盤而得其聲，他日聞鐘，以為日也”，正是此理。E. Cassirer 論初民思索以比擬為主，一端有類，即謂為全體大同 (Pars pro toto) (Die Philosophie des symbolischen Formen, II, S.83; Language & Myth, tr. Susanne K. Langer, pp.91-3)，可謂探本矣。參觀 Wordsworth: “We have had the brow & the eye of the moon before; but what have we reserved for human beings, if their features & organs etc. are to be lavished on objects without feeling & intelligence?” (Letters: Later Years, ed. E. de Selincourt, I, p.436); Novalis: “Seltsame Ausführung eines Gleichnisses — z.B. dieLiebe ist süss, also kommt ihr alles zu, was dem Zucker zukommt” (Schriften, hrsg. P. Kluckholm & R. Samuel, Bd.III, S.311); Léon Guichard, L’Oeuvre et l’Ame de Jules Renard, pp.336 & 345: “Beaucoup d’images de Renard ... lui venaient tout simplement d’une métaphore prise à la lettre ... Prendre à la lettre les ex-pressions métaphorique courantes était une tournure de l’esprit de Jules Renard”。《談藝錄》二七頁引《翻譯名義集》卷五語11，與 Wordsworth 意相似。岑參《夜過盤石隔河望永樂》之“月如眉已畫，雲似鬢新梳”；陸龜蒙《和襲美新秋言懷三十韻》之“才疎惟自補，技癢欲誰抓”，皆比喻引申之例。然一不慎，則成笑話，如《漁隱叢話前集》卷五五引《王直方詩話》載王禹錫詩云：“打葉雨拳隨手重，吹涼風口逐人來。”Th. Lipps, Komik und Humor, S.27: “Die Komik-Verwandle Halbe-und Viertels-Ähnlichkeiten in Gleichheiten”，非其驗歟？
《讽刺与幽默》
Komik und Humor
〇六四頁12：“孔子有得於水。”按《荀子·宥坐篇》“孔子觀於東流之水。子貢問於孔子曰：‘君子之所以見大水必觀焉者，是何？’孔子曰：‘夫水’云云”一節，應補入。亦見《大戴記·勸學篇》《說苑·雜言篇》《家語·三恕篇》。諸喻皆切，而“其流也埤下，踞拘必循其理，似義”“其赴百仞之谷不懼，似勇”“其萬折也必東，似志”，尤《文心雕龍·比興篇》所謂“或擬於心”之佳例。
〇六五頁13：“詞若缺負未足，而意則充實有餘。”參觀 Aristotle, Rhetoric, III. vi. 7: “The practice of Antimachus is useful, that of describing a thing by the qualities it does not possess ... [by] employ[ing] epithets from negations” (“The Loeb Classical Library”, p.377; cf. J.W.H. Atkins, Literary Criticism in Antiquity, I, p.143: “This device ... might be carried to infinity, & as such it is suggestive of subtle & sublime effects, e.g. Odys. VI. 43; Soph. Antig. 1071; Eurip. Hecuba, 669; Hamlet, I. v. 77: ‘unhousel’d, disappointed, unanel’d’; Par. Lost, III. 373: ‘Immutable, Immortal, Infinite’; Bk of Revelation, XXII. 5”)14; Wm. Watson, Excursions in Criticism, p.108: “‘Rachel weeping for her children; she refuseth to be comforted for her children: because they are not’ [Jeremiah, XXI. 15]15. This is infinitely more impressive than any phrase like ‘because they are dead’ could have been. ‘Because they are dead’ would convey a latent impression of the children still existing as corpses. ‘Because they are not’ suggests only the awful & tremendous mystery of annihilation”。
《赫卡柏》
Hecuba
